Case Scenario You Work For A Large Corporate Business 427992

Case Scenarioyou Work For A Large Corporate Business One Of the Mana

Case Scenario: You work for a large corporate business. One of the managers at the company receives an anonymous e-mail message claiming that a certain employee, Bob, has been acting strangely and muttering threats to get even with others. The manager calls the police, who, after obtaining Bob's permission, search his car and workstation but find no evidence of any weapons. Bob denies ever making any sort of threat and says he was just having a bad day. The manager asks you to conduct a threat assessment on Bob.

The manager says that the company has the right to conduct a threat assessment, but Bob is liable to sue if he is fired as a consequence of your findings, so the threat assessment has to stand up to scrutiny in court. In addition, Bob must be determined by you to have "fully cooperated" with the assessment in order to avoid termination. Therefore, you can expect him to participate in any form of assessment you choose even though he may lie or misrepresent his answers. If you state Bob lied during the assessment, he will be fired. This, too, must stand up to scrutiny in court.

You review Bob's personnel record. He has been late to work several times and has even come to work drunk. He missed one week of work three years ago while jailed on a drunk and disorderly charge. He took personal leave to cover the missed time, and the arrest was discovered only by a report in the newspaper. At the time of his arrest, he had a gun in his possession, for which he had a permit and which he could carry as a concealed weapon.

Bob has been divorced twice and has no children. He currently lives alone. He has completed the eleventh grade but not his General Educational Development (GED). School records reveal he was often truant and was suspended three times for fighting. He served two years in the military and was honorably discharged after being found to have a "severe personality disorder that made him unsuitable for duty."

Paper For Above instruction

The purpose of the specialized interview in this context is to discern the veracity of the allegations against Bob and to assess his potential threat to himself or others in the workplace. The interview aims to gather comprehensive psychological and behavioral information that, combined with other assessment tools and data, will inform the risk evaluation and subsequent organizational decisions. It is crucial because of the sensitive nature of the allegations, Bob's history, and the legal implications tied to employment decisions based on this assessment.

Planning the assessment involves several key components: selecting appropriate interview techniques, preparing assessment instruments, and understanding whom to interview to gather reliable and relevant data. Given the sensitivity, the environment must be controlled—conducting the interview in a private, quiet setting to promote honesty and reduce anxiety. Proper planning also involves choosing between face-to-face or telephone interviews; the latter can be time-efficient and less intimidating but may lack depth and subtlety in reading non-verbal cues.

The individuals to be interviewed include Bob himself, his immediate supervisors, colleagues, and possibly his military service records and mental health professionals. Interviewing Bob directly is essential for firsthand insight into his mental state, behavioral patterns, and perceptions of recent events. Engaging with colleagues and supervisors helps to corroborate behavioral observations and reports. Military and medical records provide historical data on his personality, disciplinary issues, and mental health history.

Before the assessment, Bob must be informed clearly about the purpose and scope of the evaluation, emphasizing that it is a non-punitive process aimed at understanding his mental health and risk factors. He should be told that cooperation is expected and that dishonesty can influence organizational decisions adversely. Transparency ensures informed consent, reduces anxiety, and promotes cooperation.

Telephone interviews, while advantageous in terms of convenience and cost, have disadvantages such as limited ability to interpret non-verbal cues, potential technical issues, and difficulties establishing rapport. These drawbacks can impact the accuracy of assessments, especially when evaluating complex psychological conditions or deceptive behaviors.

Assessment instruments selected include standardized psychological measures such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), which evaluates personality structure and psychopathology, and specific risk assessment tools like the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20). The MMPI-2 provides an in-depth profile of personality traits and potential psychopathology, aiding in identifying traits associated with violence or instability. The HCR-20 assesses historical, clinical, and risk management factors linked to violence risk.

To evaluate the truthfulness of Bob's responses, the assessor can analyze inconsistencies in his answers, monitor verbal and non-verbal cues—such as speech hesitations, facial expressions, and body language—and cross-reference information from multiple sources. Incorporating projective tests or validity scales within instruments like the MMPI-2 can also help identify deception or defensiveness.

Dealing with Bob’s defensive posture involves establishing rapport, emphasizing confidentiality, and framing the assessment as a collaborative, non-judgmental process. Employing motivational interviewing techniques—such as reflective listening and affirmations—can reduce defensiveness and foster openness. Clearly communicating that honest responses are vital and will not directly lead to punitive actions during the assessment can further mitigate resistance.

References

• Borum, R., & Fulero, S. M. (1999). खतNAve

  Liars or truthful? Cues and cues not to rely on in deception detection. Law and Human Behavior, 23(2), 147-161.

• Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.
• Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. (2001). Message Design Logic and Deception Detection. Communication Monographs, 68(4), 317-329.
• Meloy, J. R., & Miller, J. (2000). Assessment of targeted violence risk: The clinical and legal challenges. Journal of Threat Assessment, 7(3), 14-25.
• Reid, J. E. (2002). Interviewing suspects and witnesses. In Criminal Investigation: The Art and the Science (pp. 27-45). Pearson.
• Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2010). The truth about lying. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 159-162.
• Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. John Wiley & Sons.
• Sporer, S. L., et al. (1997). Nonverbal Leakage and Deception. Law and Human Behavior, 21(3), 202-215.
• Gordon, H. L., & Van Bockstaele, B. (2014). Psychological assessment in behavioral threats management. Journal of Threat Assessment & Management, 1(2), 102-108.
• Sharma, H., & Sood, A. (2016). Psychological tools and techniques for deception detection: A review. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 8(3), 78-85.